-
Any and all textual works can be decried as “lacking exigence”, no matter their content.
-
Make vague references to “the canon”. Do not explain what canon you’re talking about.
-
Employ words like “ethic (singular)”, “schema”, “polity”. It doesn’t matter if you use them correctly, just use them.
-
Pick a noun or an adjective to use as a verb. Just give it your own definition and let the audience figure it out.
-
Use obtuse definitions of philosophical frameworks, like “it’s about bodies moving through space”. Do not elaborate or make it easier to tell what the fuck that’s supposed to mean.
-
If someone is making a good argument that you don’t like, say it’s “reinforcing teleological norms” and refuse to engage with it any more.
-
And, of course, the classic: Anything you don’t like is “deeply unserious”.
thank u for coming to my ted talk
Hey I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to roast me like this unprompted.
mods mods mods!Wait, shit, I am the mods.
akshually it’s 70% a self-report and 30% things my college profs said that annoyed me
And, of course, the classic: Anything you don’t like is “deeply unserious”.
This one is actually true though
Unserious response, try actually grappling with the ontology of the post next time.
To a certain polity, the posting ethic is merely about posting-as-schema, and while it’s clear that the author rudimentarily grasps the canon, I do think the contents of her discoursing is quite lacking exigence.
“x-as-y” is a good one, forgot about that
peepee-as-poopoo
The false dualism of the schema you have posited is imminent within it’s own critique qua critique. The signifier “smarty-pants" is forever seeking its signified, its meaning always already deferred, failing to appear.
I’m not even going to try to do all of this like the other comments
phillister!
When arguing, use “ergo” a lot to make sure people know you just made a point, even if you haven’t made a point.
Also I actually used “schema” earlier today but I was explaining a bit of code for the blog logic for my web framework to my partner.
Who art thou, that spake of such balderdash?
A mere philistine in the good works and hands of the sciences they call “yapponomics”?
how do I do the opposite of this? make insightful remarks or speak knowledgeably on a topic and growing closer to them instead of becoming alienated by the effort.
Type in lower case and use maoist standard english
And speak concisely…
silence earnest communicator. a sophist is speaking…
- Whenever you think you’ve made a good point, end it with “QED” (or “quod erat demonstrandum” to sound smarter).
- If you feel overwhelmed or confused by any counterargument, be sure to dismiss it as “an argument in semantics”.
- Heraclitus stated “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”, this phrase can be deployed for almost all topics.
- All treats you subjectively hate can be marginalised by labelling it low-brow, meaningless “bread and circuses” slop (or “panem et circenses” for extra points).
I fear I do these and your tips more than I care to realise
Heraclitus stated “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”, this phrase can be deployed for almost all topics.
Common misconception. Heraclitus actually said you can never suck off the same man twice.
Make sure to do everything you can to prevent electrical infetterence.
